0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
I thought people would have more brains than this on this forum , people seem to be asleep in error of thinking .
Quote from: Michael Sally on 29/03/2021 13:09:25I thought people would have more brains than this on this forum , people seem to be asleep in error of thinking .Why did you think our responses would be any different from the last time you were here?
Stumbled around like a sleepy child, grasping at knowledge and missing entirely.
Do you disagree with my question ?
Actually the person was very inefficient at explaining. Almost as if they had a very low IQ. They were trying to be smart but failed miserably. Stumbled around like a sleepy child, grasping at knowledge and missing entirely.
When was I last here ?
Might of been somebody else with similar notions , was the person efficient at explaining ?
Since this has obviously strayed away from mainstream science, I have moved this thread to New Theories.Quote from: Michael Sally on 29/03/2021 16:11:22When was I last here ?If I recall correctly, your last sock puppet was either Starlight or Tass.Quote from: Michael Sally on 29/03/2021 16:11:22Might of been somebody else with similar notions , was the person efficient at explaining ?No, it was definitely you. Your scientific knowledge has not improved noticeably since then. So why do you keep coming back? Do you really expect us to react any better to your ideas just because time has passed? Even if you don't end up getting banned, I know you're going to end up getting just as much grief from Bored Chemist as you did before because your ideas don't make any more sense now than they did in the past.QuoteDo you disagree with my question ?I'll mirror what alancalverd said in response to this.
I have no idea who you are talking about
What I have explained about light is true
Quote from: Michael Sally on 29/03/2021 19:12:22I have no idea who you are talking aboutRight...Quote from: Michael Sally on 29/03/2021 19:12:22What I have explained about light is trueNo, it isn't. There is no attractive force moving light.
Why are you denying physical process facts ?
No, it isn't. There is no attractive force moving light.
Is that really true? Don't large masses, such as galaxies, exert an "attractive" effect on beams of light going past them. Thus causing the light-beams to "bend" away from their original dead-straight trajectories, into a curved path. So producing the "gravitational-lensing" effect?
The short of it is that light slows down in matter because it induces interference with itself and then speeds back up when it exits because that interference is no longer there.
Now you have contradicted yourself by admitting it speeds back up when exiting glass .
You want me or anyone else to believe in magic ?
That interference goes away once the light leaves the material, so there is no more interference and the light goes back to behaving like it did before. Again, no attractive force and no acceleration needed.
Light passing through a medium is affected by the permeability of the medium and it is a fact that acceleration is required for something to speed up . Why are you denying simple school boy physics such as what is required to accelerate ?
I guess I will see my question and answer in the future coming from a more celebrity scientist ?
Quote from: charles1948 on 29/03/2021 19:35:59Is that really true? Don't large masses, such as galaxies, exert an "attractive" effect on beams of light going past them. Thus causing the light-beams to "bend" away from their original dead-straight trajectories, into a curved path. So producing the "gravitational-lensing" effect?That's not what I meant. I meant there is no attractive force causing light to move in the first place. Light in a perfect vacuum with no gravity around would move without trouble.